Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

[Belindi]

Belindi,
You know the present desert religions do not support science, perhaps Judaism is a little more flexible, not sure on that one. One thing that strikes me, this personification of society's moral code. Your talking about a moral code thousand of years old, the gods are war gods recomending genocide, murder, women as property, slavery, stoning and selling one's daughters into sexual slavery. Indeed the pantheon would be an improvement, most anything would be. My point has been if one wishes to create cohension morality has to be based on commonality, the commonality of our common biology, and in this area, science is more qualified to lead us into such the future than these archaic religions.

I disagree with your interpretation of the history of God. I agree with Karen Armstrong "A History of God"

[popeye1945]

GE Morton,
Very interesting post GE, I find I agree with some and not other of your statements. Your statement that no moral propositions can be derived from biological or other natural facts is countered by one of your other statements. "They are borrowers, not innovators. They adopt precepts widely accepted at the time as pragmatic, and then pronounced them, "the word of god."

If that isn't biology at work nothing is the mentality of the population at the given time, fairies, witches, warlocks, angels, gods, these texts were written at a time when humanity's ignorance was almost total.


"Commonalities of any kind are of no moral interest. It is the differences among us, not the commonalities that give rise to conflicts, and thus, to moral questions."

Well, the first statement is absurd, we are all interested in our own life and well-being. I agree with the second, that is why morality must be based upon our common biology. Morality is meaning, and as such, it is the property of conscious beings, it is bestowed upon a meaningless environment through the relation of subject and object/the world/ and its conscious beings.

"A sound morality is at bottom a pragmatic endeavor." quote

Can you think of anything more pragmatic than the life and well-being of the creator of a given morality?

[popeye1945]

" I disagree with your interpretation of the history of God. I agree with Karen Armstrong "A History of God"

[/quote]

Hi Blindi,

Could you put that into a nut shell, as it stands, its a bit like a driveby shotting.

[Belindi]

" I disagree with your interpretation of the history of God. I agree with Karen Armstrong "A History of God"

Hi Blindi,

Could you put that into a nut shell, as it stands, its a bit like a driveby shotting.
[/quote]

I could, maybe. God is an idea which like other ideas, is based on history. History is dynamic and narrative so the idea of God is dynamic and narrative.

It is true that the ancient Jahweh of the OT is tribal. It is also true that monotheism was an idea that empowered the nomadic tribe. It is also true that among the OT prophet in later times, and in various other places around the world including Persia, China and India within about five centuries the idea of God has matured so that God stood for more than a set of tribal regulations but had to do with man's intention to live good lives.

As well know, many 'religious' sects and 'religious' individuals today hold to the ancient tribal Jahweh and have regressed from the civilised God of the Golden Rule.

[Belindi]

" I disagree with your interpretation of the history of God. I agree with Karen Armstrong "A History of God"

Hi Blindi,

Could you put that into a nut shell, as it stands, its a bit like a driveby shotting.
[/quote]

I could, maybe. God is an idea which like other ideas, is based on history. History is dynamic and narrative so the idea of God is dynamic and narrative.

It is true that the ancient Jahweh of the OT is tribal. It is also true that monotheism was an idea that empowered the nomadic tribe. It is also true that among the OT prophet in later times, and in various other places around the world including Persia, China and India within about five centuries the idea of God has matured so that God stood for more than a set of tribal regulations but had to do with man's intention to live good lives.

As well know, many 'religious' sects and 'religious' individuals today hold to the ancient tribal Jahweh and have regressed from the civilised God of the Golden Rule.

It's an unfortunate thing about religions that they tend to become fossilised and conservative, and even sometimes cruel, as to myths, rules, and regulations . To their credit they have helped to perpetuate also The Golden Rule.

[popeye1945]

All things evolve, on what particulars do you find my post in error? All the desert religions texts are wretched, do you find them not so.?

[GE Morton]

GE Morton,
Very interesting post GE, I find I agree with some and not other of your statements. Your statement that no moral propositions can be derived from biological or other natural facts is countered by one of your other statements. "They are borrowers, not innovators. They adopt precepts widely accepted at the time as pragmatic, and then pronounced them, "the word of god."

If that isn't biology at work nothing is the mentality of the population at the given time, fairies, witches, warlocks, angels, gods, these texts were written at a time when humanity's ignorance was almost total.

I can't make sense of your second sentence there. It seems ungrammatical. Are you construing peoples beliefs as "biological facts"? That would be an eclectic understanding of that term.

Of course, biology is "at work" in all human or animal activity. Moral theorizing, and all thinking (so far) requires a biological substrate. But that is trivial. What you can't do logically is derive "People ought to walk upright" from, say, "Humans are bipedal mammals."

"Commonalities of any kind are of no moral interest. It is the differences among us, not the commonalities that give rise to conflicts, and thus, to moral questions."

Well, the first statement is absurd, we are all interested in our own life and well-being.

Of course. But that is not a moral interest. But perhaps we have different understandings of what morality is. I take it to be a set of rules and principles governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting. Crusoe, alone on his island, will be concerned for his life and well-being, but he has no need for a morality.

I agree with the second, that is why morality must be based upon our common biology. Morality is meaning, and as such, it is the property of conscious beings, it is bestowed upon a meaningless environment through the relation of subject and object/the world/ and its conscious beings.

Your first statement there does not follow from the second. Though (as mentioned above) being capable of constructing a morality indeed requires a biological substrate, that substrate doesn't determine the content of that morality.

[popeye1945]

I can't make sense of your second sentence there. It seems ungrammatical. Are you construing peoples beliefs as "biological facts"? That would be an eclectic understanding of that term. quote

meanings are what we bestow upon objects/facts and it takes a conscious subject to do so. Again the physical world is meaningless in the absence of conscious subject.

Of course, biology is "at work" in all human or animal activity. Moral theorizing, and all thinking (so far) requires a biological substrate. But that is trivial. What you can't do logically is derive "People ought to walk upright" from, say, "Humans are bipedal mammals." quote

We take the world as we find it, meaning is the biological reaction of the subject to the object, what is it, is it soft, is it hard, these are meanings.


Of course. But that is not a moral interest. But perhaps we have different understandings of what morality is. I take it to be a set of rules and principles governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting. Crusoe, alone on his island, will be concerned for his life and well-being, but he has no need for a morality.quote

I don't know where the problem lies. Morality is a social construct, it is an agreement on how best to live, that is self-interest. What would serve the self-interest of a given people better than a morality based on their common biology, its continuation and well-being?

Your first statement there does not follow from the second. Though (as mentioned above) being capable of constructing a morality indeed requires a biological substrate, that substrate doesn't determine the content of that morality.
[/quote]

If you do believe your above statement, then what indeed is the purpose of a morality, if it is not the well being of its subjects. What is properly the object of morality?

[polargirl]

Morals are like beauty in that they tend to be in the eye of the beholder. Trying to find absolute moral truths is like trying to find absolute beauty truths.

Like beauty and ugliness, specific morals can be perceived as predominantly beautiful, predominantly ugly, or controversial. Like beauty and ugliness, no specific moral is unanimous. The world contains people that are so delusionally and perhaps psychotically evil that they see good in what even most clearer thinking evil people perceive as wrong even if the latter only do so in a practical rather than any moral sense. There are people in this world that have "ugly chaser" fetishes as well hence see ugly as beautiful.

To the victor goes the spoils. One of those spoils is to rewrite history as well as moral ranting spoils. If the south won the US Civil War, Confederate soldiers would have been perceived as morally similar to Revolutionary War soldiers in the Confederate States of America. Had the continentals lost the Revolutionary War, history would have perceived them similar to Civil War Confederate soldiers. Just think of how the morals of Benedict Arnold would have been debated if the British Empire won the Revolutionary War. He probably would have been compared to the biblical hitman Saul that tuned good when Jesus showed him the light and baptized him as Paul.

[popeye1945]

Morality needs to be based upon our commonality, our common biology, the supernatural makes no sense for a reason.